• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

performance diff between 830 and 840 EE

E

erf

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
1,848
i'm looking at a dell and am wondering what the performance difference between the pD830 and 840EE are? besides the 840 being 3.2 as compared to the 830's 3ghz is the 840 worth the extra $$$?
 
i believe the ee cpu has the hyper threading, so it's a dual core with hyper threading in each core, so it's like 4 cpus lol.

(not literally, but you get the multitasking power idea of it ;) )
 
the ee is extreemly overpriced and only marginally outperforms an 830/840 (especially the 840), especially for the price. it even loses to the 840 sometimes, HT doesnt seem to like dual core as much as it liked single cores.
 
lithium726 said:
the ee is extreemly overpriced and only marginally outperforms an 830/840 (especially the 840), especially for the price. it even loses to the 840 sometimes, HT doesnt seem to like dual core as much as it liked single cores.
Click to expand...


which is why intel has removed it from every up and coming dual core CPU they're releasing :).
 
The only difference is hyperthreading. I found that Dell offers systems equipped with it and they are overclockable on air to 3.4 and 3.6 Mhz. I don't know to buy this one or a x2 4800, Dell will save me lots of money if I got the Intel.

Have you read this guys?:

http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=384519&P=7

Based on our results with “PCMark 2004” we estimate that a Pentium D would have to run at around 3,450 MHz, that is 250 MHz more than the current 840 default frequency, to be on par with the X2 4800+. In a real life comparison the X2 4800+ would of course also be overclocked and the distance would probably remain the same.

Is that true that it can beat the 4800 stock with Air overcloking? if this will be the case, then I am buying from Dell..
 
zoz123 said:
The only difference is hyperthreading. I found that Dell offers systems equipped with it and they are overclockable on air to 3.4 and 3.6 Mhz. I don't know to buy this one or a x2 4800, Dell will save me lots of money if I got the Intel.

Have you read this guys?:

http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=384519&P=7

Based on our results with “PCMark 2004” we estimate that a Pentium D would have to run at around 3,450 MHz, that is 250 MHz more than the current 840 default frequency, to be on par with the X2 4800+. In a real life comparison the X2 4800+ would of course also be overclocked and the distance would probably remain the same.

Is that true that it can beat the 4800 stock with Air overcloking? if this will be the case, then I am buying from Dell..
Click to expand...

But no one asked about AMD!

Donnie27
 
erf said:
i'm looking at a dell and am wondering what the performance difference between the pD830 and 840EE are? besides the 840 being 3.2 as compared to the 830's 3ghz is the 840 worth the extra $$$?
Click to expand...

They're wrong=P The Problem is not the P4EE or Hyperthreading. The problem is the OS and both Intel & MS have pointed that out. The OS and Application would need to be Quad Processor aware. Last time I checked WinXP wasn't and only supports Dual Processor or a Single Dual Core, NOT QUAD!

Intel will keep adding Hyperthreading to those systems that can take advantage of it. Of those you asked about, price wise, the 830 might make them best choice! ;)

Donnie27
 
Donnie, you can run dual core, dual Opterons in Windows XP.

Microsoft has stated that their licensing is in regards to physical processors, not logical.
 
Donnie27 said:
But no one asked about AMD!

Donnie27
Click to expand...

I am asking because I am consideing the P8400 EE and want to know if its overclocking to 3.6 would make it beat the X2 4800 in gaming or not.
 
Morley said:
Donnie, you can run dual core, dual Opterons in Windows XP.

Microsoft has stated that their licensing is in regards to physical processors, not logical.
Click to expand...

I gave a link to Microsoft and Intel saying WinXP does NOT support 4 threads, doesn't matter if it can see 8 processors!

Donnie27
 
zoz123 said:
I am asking because I am consideing the P8400 EE and want to know if its overclocking to 3.6 would make it beat the X2 4800 in gaming or not.
Click to expand...
It still wouldnt beat it in gaming but might beat it in other things. It doesnt matter anyways, even with 2x 7800gtx's in sli the difference between a 3.0ghz p4 and a 3.2ghz a64 would be marginal at best as long as your are turning up the eye candy enough.
 
Morley said:
Please post that link.
Click to expand...
seconded...

my buddy's dual xeons with HT work under xp pro, and the gains from HT ARE seen in benchmarks.

also, if that were true, there would be NO difference between the 840 and 840EE in windows, when there is. sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. and before you say it might only be threading the first physical core with HT, that cant be, cause then the chip would be exactly equal to a 3.2ghz p4. which it isnt.
 
Donnie27 said:
I don't have the links saved. Like I said though, I did post them here.

Donnie27
Click to expand...
Frankly, I have personal experience with not only the PD 840 EE, but numerous dual Xeon platforms with HT. I have seen first hand the difference between four logical and two logical processors. I'm not sure where you're getting your information.
 
Morley said:
Frankly, I have personal experience with not only the PD 840 EE, but numerous dual Xeon platforms with HT. I have seen first hand the difference between four logical and two logical processors. I'm not sure where you're getting your information.
Click to expand...

Again, I know what I read and posted it here. In the past when I was wrong, I posted as much. This time I'm most certainly NOT! 840EE does slightly better than two Xeons with a similar config. I didn't talk about about Dual Dual Core Hammers, you did. I said it sould all the processors it likes, WindowsXP can only make use of Dual Threads on each app=P
Now you can Multitask to get better use out of it, but that not the say. I read the info at GamePC, 2CPU.com and others. I posted the links to Scali and others on a thread about 5 months ago.
 
Donnie27 said:
Again, I know what I read and posted it here. In the past when I was wrong, I posted as much. This time I'm most certainly NOT! 840EE does slightly better than two Xeons with a similar config. I didn't talk about about Dual Dual Core Hammers, you did. I said it sould all the processors it likes, WindowsXP can only make use of Dual Threads on each app=P
Now you can Multitask to get better use out of it, but that not the say. I read the info at GamePC, 2CPU.com and others. I posted the links to Scali and others on a thread about 5 months ago.
Click to expand...
3D Studio Max 7 and Photoshop both show a marked difference between 2 and 4 logical cores in Windows XP.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pee840&page=9

Continued on the next page.
 
Morley said:
3D Studio Max 7 and Photoshop both show a marked difference between 2 and 4 logical cores in Windows XP.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pee840&page=9

Continued on the next page.
Click to expand...

Same review.

GamePC said:
In our tests, we only found a scant few applications which benefited from Hyper-Threading, some even performed slower. In the cases where Hyper-Threading does help, it’s typically between a 5-10% performance gain. Is this feature enough to justify the massive price hike over the standard Pentium-D? We certainly don’t think so. We think Intel has made a very large mistake in relying on Hyper-Threading as their sold differentiator between their dual core product line. It’s simply not an important enough feature to warrant such a large price gap.
Click to expand...

Of course this processor is multiplier unlocked as well but I agree with GamePC.

I already linked Scali to this same review months ago as well. Intel said WinXP often keeps the data on one core and uses Hyperthreading instead of the Second Processor. Window Server edition didn't. Doesn't matter if Windows XP can see 8 processors, it was made for 2 and HT. Now if it is Quad and 8-Way enabled, please link me to MS saying so?

Donnie27
 
Is there any draw back of Intel dual core on over head? As a no. of yr. ago, in one of those Intel White Paper, they stated on sys. server w/ 2 CPU on SMP, the overhead is 0.5x, thus, performance gain on 2 x CPU is only 1.5x on performance. Likewise, performance gain on 4 x CPU is 3x, in other words with Quad CPU, the overhead is 1x.

What is the overhead on dual core? It's a master/slave relationship there has to be some overhead. The problem w/ overhead is if your CPU is not doing much, it still waste CPU resource to assign task to its slave CPU, wasting valuable CPU time.
 
Happy Hopping said:
Is there any draw back of Intel dual core on over head? As a no. of yr. ago, in one of those Intel White Paper, they stated on sys. server w/ 2 CPU on SMP, the overhead is 0.5x, thus, performance gain on 2 x CPU is only 1.5x on performance. Likewise, performance gain on 4 x CPU is 3x, in other words with Quad CPU, the overhead is 1x.

What is the overhead on dual core? It's a master/slave relationship there has to be some overhead. The problem w/ overhead is if your CPU is not doing much, it still waste CPU resource to assign task to its slave CPU, wasting valuable CPU time.
Click to expand...
its pretty much the same thing. you will never get 2x performance (at least not currently)

according to cinebench, my dual 1.75ghz p3's have 1.87x the performance of a single 1.75ghz p3. my athlon x2 @2.4ghz has 1.88x the performance of a single a64 at 2.4ghz.

pentium D's are probably have a little more overhead (compared to the x2) due to the way they are set up, having to communicate through the northbridge and all.
 
I would imagine if servers say w/ 4 or 8 processor using dual core processors, that there will be "Operation control" issue btwn. ea. processor allocating tasks to ea. core., it seems to further complicated things.
 
I bought a dell with pentium d 3.0ghz, it sohuld be awsome..

Is a pentium D 3.0ghz better than a pentium 4 3.2ghz??
 
Not true. I have an 840EE running four threads in a molecular biology program (Mascot, if you care) right now. This particular app is highly parallelizable and I see an ~26% performance increase on going from 2 threads to 4 by enabling HT. This processor easily goes above 4.0 on water, with no voltage adjustment, rock steady. Thus I get about 250% of the power I'd get from a single core w/ HT running at 3.4.

If you're still curious why I have such an obviously overpriced processor: this app I'm talking about costs about $2500/CPU in licensing. It sees a dual core as a single processor for licensing purposes (and sees my four logical processors as one processor). I''ll leave the math to you as an exercise. :p

Point is, this processor makes a lot of sense for some niche applications like mine.

Donnie27 said:
WindowsXP can only make use of Dual Threads on each app=P
Now you can Multitask to get better use out of it, but that not the say. .
Click to expand...
 
swirly said:
I bought a dell with pentium d 3.0ghz, it sohuld be awsome..

Is a pentium D 3.0ghz better than a pentium 4 3.2ghz??
Click to expand...
no...

edit: i thought you were comparing the D 3.0 to the D 3.2 :p

for your real question, it really just depends on what you are doing. but IMO, yes. it is.
 
Blethrow said:
Not true. I have an 840EE running four threads in a molecular biology program (Mascot, if you care) right now. This particular app is highly parallelizable and I see an ~26% performance increase on going from 2 threads to 4 by enabling HT. This processor easily goes above 4.0 on water, with no voltage adjustment, rock steady. Thus I get about 250% of the power I'd get from a single core w/ HT running at 3.4.

If you're still curious why I have such an obviously overpriced processor: this app I'm talking about costs about $2500/CPU in licensing. It sees a dual core as a single processor for licensing purposes (and sees my four logical processors as one processor). I''ll leave the math to you as an exercise. :p

Point is, this processor makes a lot of sense for some niche applications like mine.
Click to expand...

Cool! :p

Donnie27
 
If you open up Task Manager, go to "processes", then in the view add in the "thread count" column you will see how many threads each process is using. As I am typing this, FireFox is using 11 threads. My virus software is using 42, and outlook is using 26!

I am using winXP pro and a P4 with HT.
 
xappie said:
If you open up Task Manager, go to "processes", then in the view add in the "thread count" column you will see how many threads each process is using. As I am typing this, FireFox is using 11 threads. My virus software is using 42, and outlook is using 26!

I am using winXP pro and a P4 with HT.
Click to expand...

I'am using WinXP and HT as well. Most Processes are TSRs or Terminate and Stay Resident, they're not running in Paralelle.

Again, I don't care if you can see 16 processors in the Task manager. Hell, Hyperthreading fills in gaps on one data stream, it doesn't create two streams. The questions were about 840EE, not Opterons. The problems Intel (NOT AMD) talked about is two streams of data meant for multi-processors or cores are being Processed with one core via Hyperthreading, instead of being sent to the second processor. Two Processors are faster than one HT Processor.

GamePC CLEARLY showed mixed results.

http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/200677.htm?page=3

Software Licensing Models

In order for multiprocessor systems to be effective the operating system must be able to detect multiple processors and provide a mechanism to schedule separate processes and/or threads on the physical and logical processors present. This is true for all the architectural systems discussed in this paper. Microsoft provides several versions of Windows* that have this capability, as do many Unix/Linux*-based operating systems.
Click to expand...

Again, it must do more than just see the cores.

Impact of Load Imbalance

That's what newer Arbitration Logic in the i945/i955X is supposed to correct/help and why Dual core is NOT compat with Intel's other Chipsets. i875 is Dual Processor compatible but doesn't have this type of AL. This is also the problem Intel talked about with WinXP, that doesn't happen on Win2K3 Server. I can't find the damned link though.

Hyper Threading Demos

Please read these then post back to me?

Donnie27
 
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believed you to say that Windows XP Pro can not utilize more than 2 processors at one time, regardless of how many it sees?

Am I correct, or do you in fact mean that it's an Intel issue only, and doesn't affect, say, dual core Opterons?
 
Morley said:
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believed you to say that Windows XP Pro can not utilize more than 2 processors at one time, regardless of how many it sees?

Am I correct, or do you in fact mean that it's an Intel issue only, and doesn't affect, say, dual core Opterons?
Click to expand...

Intel only and some negative affects of Hyper Threading, nothing more, nothing less.

Donnie27
 
For technology sake and just to have the best the 840EE is it.

But, in a more practical real world use, I think 830 or 840 are the better choices. 840 if you can afford it 830 if you can't. From most of the tests I have seen the 840EE did better when it had HT disabled which in essence is just a 840-non-EE. :D

I would have gone for the 840 myself, but the price premium over the 820 was just too much.
 
zoz123 said:
The only difference is hyperthreading. I found that Dell offers systems equipped with it and they are overclockable on air to 3.4 and 3.6 Mhz. I don't know to buy this one or a x2 4800, Dell will save me lots of money if I got the Intel.

Have you read this guys?:

http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=384519&P=7

Based on our results with “PCMark 2004” we estimate that a Pentium D would have to run at around 3,450 MHz, that is 250 MHz more than the current 840 default frequency, to be on par with the X2 4800+. In a real life comparison the X2 4800+ would of course also be overclocked and the distance would probably remain the same.

Is that true that it can beat the 4800 stock with Air overcloking? if this will be the case, then I am buying from Dell..
Click to expand...

Keep in mind they were using an ES chip, they dropped the multiplier to get the fsb to 250 whatever and the chip was still only running 3.7ghz so it wasn't getting as hot as 250fsb on a locked one would be.
 
ChronicTrees said:
Keep in mind they were using an ES chip, they dropped the multiplier to get the fsb to 250 whatever and the chip was still only running 3.7ghz so it wasn't getting as hot as 250fsb on a locked one would be.
Click to expand...

It's also not correct. THe 3.73GHz's FSB is 1066.7MHz or so, not the 1000 (more than likely 998.7 since 1000MHz is not easily reached. It's not just a matter of 66MHz, but added latency from "Asynchronously" (out of sync) running the system causes a hit, 1:1 is the best=P

Back to what I posted earlier. See this review guys?

Tech Report

There is an issue, however, with the Pentium Extreme Edition that we've identified. The second computation thread gets executed on the logical HT thread rather than the 2nd core, so performance isn't as good as it could be. (Load Imbalance) This will be fixed in the next revision. This doesn't effect [sic] the regular Pentium D. A workaround could include disabling HT on Pentium EE. There are 3 threads for primordia - 2 threads for computation, 1 thread for U/I.

Just as many times gains are made from HT on Dual Cores, it either doesn't help or causes a hit as well. The price difference for HT and it being unlocked is almost joke IMHO!

Donnie27
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top